The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Part 27

Emphatically condemned by Ecclesiastical authority, and hopelessly outvoted by the universal voice of Christendom, buried under fifteen centuries, the corruptions I speak of survive at the present day chiefly in that little handful of copies which, calamitous to relate, the school of Lachmann and Tischendorf and Tregelles look upon as oracular: and in conformity with which many scholars are for refas.h.i.+oning the Evangelical text under the mistaken t.i.tle of 'Old Readings.' And now to proceed with my argument.

-- 2.

Numerous as were the heresies of the first two or three centuries of the Christian era, they almost all agreed in this;--that they involved a denial of the eternal G.o.dhead of the Son of Man: denied that He is essentially very and eternal G.o.d. This fundamental heresy found itself hopelessly confuted by the whole tenor of the Gospel, which nevertheless it a.s.sailed with restless ingenuity: and many are the traces alike of its impotence and of its malice which have survived to our own times. It is a memorable circ.u.mstance that it is precisely those very texts which relate either to the eternal generation of the Son,--to His Incarnation,--or to the circ.u.mstances of His Nativity,--which have suffered most severely, and retain to this hour traces of having been in various ways tampered with. I do not say that Heretics were the only offenders here. I am inclined to suspect that the orthodox were as much to blame as the impugners of the Truth. But it was at least with a pious motive that the latter tampered with the Deposit. They did but imitate the example set them by the a.s.sailing party. It is indeed the calamitous consequence of extravagances in one direction that they are observed ever to beget excesses in the opposite quarter. Accordingly the piety of the primitive age did not think it wrong to fortify the Truth by the insertion, suppression, or subst.i.tution of a few words in any place from which danger was apprehended. In this way, I am persuaded, many an unwarrantable 'reading' is to be explained. I do not mean that 'marginal glosses have frequently found their way into the text':--that points to a wholly improbable account of the matter. I mean, that expressions which seemed to countenance heretical notions, or at least which had been made a bad use of by evil men, were deliberately falsified. But I must not further antic.i.p.ate the substance of the next chapter.

The men who first systematically depraved the text of Scripture, were as we now must know the heresiarchs Basilides (fl. 134), Valentinus (fl.

140), and Marcion (fl. 150): three names which Origen is observed almost invariably to enumerate together. Basilides[449] and Valentinus[450] are even said to have written Gospels of their own. Such a statement is not to be severely pressed: but the general fact is established by the notices, and those are exceedingly abundant, which the writers against Heresies have cited and left on record. All that is intended by such statements is that these old heretics retained, altered, transposed, just so much as they pleased of the fourfold Gospel: and further, that they imported whatever additional matter they saw fit:--not that they rejected the inspired text entirely, and subst.i.tuted something of their own invention in its place[451]. And though, in the case of Valentinus, it has been contended, apparently with reason, that he probably did not individually go to the same length as Basilides,--who, as well in respect of St. Paul's Epistles as of the four Gospels, was evidently a grievous offender[452],--yet, since it is clear that his princ.i.p.al followers, who were also his contemporaries, put forth a composition which they were pleased to style the 'Gospel of Truth[453],' it is idle to dispute as to the limit of the rashness and impiety of the individual author of the heresy. Let it be further stated, as no slight confirmation of the view already hazarded as to the probable contents of the (so-called) Gospels of Basilides and of Valentinus, that one particular Gospel is related to have been preferred before the rest and specially adopted by certain schools of ancient Heretics. Thus, a strangely mutilated and depraved text of St. Matthew's Gospel is related to have found especial favour with the Ebionites[454], with whom the Corinthians are a.s.sociated by Epiphanius: though Irenaeus seems to say that it was St. Mark's Gospel which was adopted by the heretical followers of Cerinthus. Marcion's deliberate choice of St. Luke's Gospel is sufficiently well known. The Valentinians appropriated to themselves St. John[455]. Heracleon, the most distinguished disciple of this school, is deliberately censured by Origen for having corrupted the text of the fourth Evangelist in many places[456]. A considerable portion of his Commentary on St. John has been preserved to us: and a very strange production it is found to have been.

Concerning Marcion, who is a far more conspicuous personage, it will be necessary to speak more particularly. He has left a mark on the text of Scripture of which traces are distinctly recognizable at the present day[457]. A great deal more is known about him than about any other individual of his school. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus wrote against him: besides Origen and Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian in the West[458], and Epiphanius in the East, elaborately refuted his teaching, and give us large information as to his method of handling Scripture.

Another writer of this remote time who, as I am p.r.o.ne to think, must have exercised sensible influence on the text of Scripture was Ammonius of Alexandria.

But Tatian beyond every other early writer of antiquity [appears to me to have caused alterations in the Sacred Text.]

It is obviously no answer to anything that has gone before to insist that the Evangelium of Marcion (for instance), so far as it is recognizable by the notices of it given by Epiphanius, can very rarely indeed be shewn to have resembled any extant MS. of the Gospels. Let it be even freely granted that many of the charges brought against it by Epiphanius with so much warmth, collapse when closely examined and severely sifted. It is to be remembered that Marcion's Gospel was known to be an heretical production: one of the many creations of the Gnostic age,--it must have been universally execrated and abhorred by faithful men. Besides this lacerated text of St. Luke's Gospel, there was an Ebionite recension of St. Matthew: a Cerinthian exhibition of St. Mark: a Valentinian perversion of St. John. And we are but insisting that the effect of so many corruptions of the Truth, industriously propagated within far less than 100 years of the date of the inspired verities themselves, must needs have made itself sensibly felt. Add the notorious fact, that in the second and third centuries after the Christian era the text of the Gospels is found to have been grossly corrupted even in orthodox quarters,--and that traces of these gross corruptions are discoverable in certain circles to the present hour,--and it seems impossible not to connect the two phenomena together. The wonder rather is that, at the end of so many centuries, we are able distinctly to recognize any evidence whatever.

The p.r.o.neness of these early Heretics severally to adopt one of the four Gospels for their own, explains why there is no consistency observable in the corruptions they introduced into the text. It also explains the bringing into one Gospel of things which of right clearly belong to another--as in St. Mark iii. 14 [Greek: ous kai apostolous onomasen].

I do not propose (as will presently appear) in this way to explain any considerable number of the actual corruptions of the text: but in no other way is it possible to account for such systematic mutilations as are found in Cod. B,--such monstrous additions as are found in Cod.

D,--such gross perturbations as are continually met with in one or more, but never in all, of the earliest Codexes extant, as well as in the oldest Versions and Fathers.

The plan of Tatian's Diatessaron will account for a great deal. He indulges in frigid glosses, as when about the wine at the feast of Cana in Galilee he reads that the servants knew 'because they had drawn the water'; or in tasteless and stupid amplifications, as in the going back of the Centurion to his house. I suspect that the [Greek: ti me erotas peri tou agathou], 'Why do you ask me about that which is good?' is to be referred to some of these tamperers with the Divine Word.

-- 3.

These professors of 'Gnosticism' held no consistent theory. The two leading problems on which they exercised their perverse ingenuity are found to have been (1) the origin of Matter, and (2) the origin of Evil.

(1) They taught that the world's artificer ('the Word') was Himself a creature of 'the Father[459].' Encountered on the threshold of the Gospel by the plain declaration that, 'In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with G.o.d: and the Word was G.o.d': and presently, 'All things were made by Him';--they were much exercised. The expedients to which they had recourse were certainly extraordinary. That 'Beginning'

(said Valentinus) was the first thing which 'the Father' created: which He called 'Only begotten Son,' and also 'G.o.d': and in whom he implanted the germ of all things. Seminally, that is, whatsoever subsequently came into being was in Him. 'The Word' (he said) was a product of this first-created thing. And 'All things were made by Him,' because in 'the Word' was the entire essence of all the subsequent worlds (Aeons), to which he a.s.signed forms[460]. From which it is plain that, according to Valentinus, 'the Word' was distinct from 'the Son'; who was not the world's Creator. Both alike, however, he acknowledged to be 'G.o.d[461]': but only, as we have seen already, using the term in an inferior sense.

Heracleon, commenting on St. John i. 3, insists that 'all things' can but signify this perishable world and the things that are therein: not essences of a loftier nature. Accordingly, after the words 'and without Him was not anything made,' he ventures to interpolate this clause,--'of the things that are in the world and in the creation[462].' True, that the Evangelist had declared with unmistakable emphasis, 'and without Him was not anything' (literally, 'was not even one thing') 'made that was made.' But instead of 'not even one thing,' the Valentinian Gnostics appear to have written 'nothing[463]'; and the concluding clause 'that was made,' because he found it simply unmanageable, Valentinus boldly severed from its context, making it the beginning of a fresh sentence.

With the Gnostics, ver. 4 is found to have begun thus,--'What was made in Him was life.'

Of the change of [Greek: oude hen] into [Greek: ouden][464] traces survive in many of the Fathers[465]: but [Symbol: Aleph] and D are the only Uncial MSS. which are known to retain that corrupt reading.--The uncouth sentence which follows ([Greek: ho gegonen en auto zoe en]), singular to relate, was generally tolerated, became established in many quarters, and meets us still at every step. It was evidently put forward so perseveringly by the Gnostics, with whom it was a kind of article of the faith, that the orthodox at last became too familiar with it.

Epiphanius, though he condemns it, once employs it[466]. Occurring first in a fragment of Valentinus[467]: next, in the Commentary of Heracleon[468]: after that, in the pages of Theodotus the Gnostic (A.D.

192)[469]: then, in an exposure by Hippolytus of the tenets of the Naaseni[470], (a subsection of the same school);--the baseness of its origin at least is undeniable. But inasmuch as the words may be made to bear a loyal interpretation, the heretical construction of St. John i. 3 was endured by the Church for full 200 years. Clemens Alex, is observed thrice to adopt it[471]: Origen[472] and Eusebius[473] fall into it repeatedly. It is found in Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]CD: apparently in Cod.

A, where it fills one line exactly. Cyril comments largely on it[474].

But as fresh heresies arose which the depraved text seemed to favour, the Church bestirred herself and remonstrated. It suited the Arians and the Macedonians[475], who insisted that the Holy Ghost is a creature.

The former were refuted by Epiphanius, who points out that the sense is not complete until you have read the words [Greek: ho gegonen]. A fresh sentence (he says) begins at [Greek: En auto zoe en][476]. Chrysostom deals with the latter. 'Let us beware of putting the full stop' (he says) 'at the words [Greek: oude hen],--as do the heretics. In order to make out that the Spirit is a creature, they read [Greek: ho gegonen en auto zoe en]: by which means the Evangelist's meaning becomes unintelligible[477].'

But in the meantime, Valentinus, whose example was followed by Theodotus and by at least two of the Gnostic sects against whom Hippolytus wrote, had gone further. The better to conceal St. John's purpose, the heresiarch falsified the inspired text. In the place of, 'What was made in Him, was life,' he subst.i.tuted 'What was made in Him, _is_ life.'

Origen had seen copies so depraved, and judged the reading not altogether improbable. Clement, on a single occasion, even adopted it.

It was the approved reading of the Old Latin versions,--a memorable indication, by the way, of a quarter from which the Old Latin derived their texts,--which explains why it is found in Cyprian, Hilary, and Augustine; and why Ambrose has so elaborately vindicated its sufficiency. It also appears in the Sahidic and in Cureton's Syriac; but not in the Pes.h.i.+tto, nor in the Vulgate. [Nor in the Bohairic] In the meantime, the only Greek Codexes which retain this singular trace of the Gnostic period at the present day, are Codexes [Symbol: Aleph] and D.

-- 4.

[We may now take some more instances to shew the effects of the operations of Heretics.]

The good Shepherd in a certain place (St. John x. 14, 15) says concerning Himself--'I know My sheep and am known of Mine, even as the Father knoweth Me and I know the Father': by which words He hints at a mysterious knowledge as subsisting between Himself and those that are His. And yet it is worth observing that whereas He describes the knowledge which subsists between the Father and the Son in language which implies that it is strictly identical on either side, He is careful to distinguish between the knowledge which subsists between the creature and the Creator by slightly varying the expression,--thus leaving it to be inferred that it is not, neither indeed can be, on either side the same. G.o.d knoweth us with a perfect knowledge. Our so-called 'knowledge' of G.o.d is a thing different not only in degree, but in kind[478]. Hence the peculiar form which the sentence a.s.sumes[479]:--[Greek: ginosko ta ema, kai ginoskomai hypo ton emon].

And this delicate diversity of phrase has been faithfully retained all down the ages, being witnessed to at this hour by every MS. in existence except four now well known to us: viz. [Symbol: Aleph]BDL. The Syriac also retains it,--as does Macarius[480], Gregory Naz.[481], Chrysostom[482], Cyril[483], Theodoret[484], Maximus[485]. It is a point which really admits of no rational doubt: for does any one suppose that if St. John had written 'Mine own know Me,' 996 MSS. out of 1000 at the end of 1,800 years would exhibit, 'I am known of Mine'?

But in fact it is discovered that these words of our Lord experienced depravation at the hands of the Manichaean heretics. Besides inverting the clauses, (and so making it appear that such knowledge begins on the side of Man.) Manes (A.D. 261) obliterated the peculiarity above indicated. Quoting from his own fabricated Gospel, he acquaints us with the form in which these words were exhibited in that mischievous production: viz. [Greek: ginoskei me ta ema, kai ginosko ta ema]. This we learn from Epiphanius and from Basil[486]. Cyril, in a paper where he makes clear reference to the same heretical Gospel, insists that the order of knowledge must needs be the reverse of what the heretics pretended[487].--But then, it is found that certain of the orthodox contented themselves with merely reversing the clauses, and so restoring the true order of the spiritual process discussed--regardless of the exquisite refinement of expression to which attention was called at the outset. Copies must once have abounded which represented our Lord as saying, 'I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knoweth Me and I know the Father'; for it is the order of the Old Latin, Bohairic, Sahidic, Ethiopic, Lewis, Georgian, Slavonic, and Gothic, though not of the Pes.h.i.+tto, Harkleian, and Armenian; and Eusebius[488], Nonnus, and even Basil[489] so read the place. But no token of this clearly corrupt reading survives in any known copy of the Gospels,--except [Symbol: Aleph]BDL. Will it be believed that nevertheless all the recent Editors of Scripture since Lachmann insist on obliterating this refinement of language, and going back to the reading which the Church has long since deliberately rejected,--to the manifest injury of the deposit? 'Many words about a trifle,'--some will be found to say. Yes, to deny G.o.d's truth is a very facile proceeding. Its rehabilitation always requires many words. I request only that the affinity between [Symbol: Aleph]BDL and the Latin copies which universally exhibit this disfigurement[490], may be carefully noted. [Strange to say, the true reading receives no notice from Westcott and Hort, or the Revisers[491]].

-- 5.

Doctrinal.

The question of Matrimony was one of those on which the early heretics freely dogmatized. Saturninus[492] (A.D. 120) and his followers taught that marriage was a production of h.e.l.l.

We are not surprised after this to find that those places in the Gospel which bear on the relation between man and wife exhibit traces of perturbation. I am not a.s.serting that the heretics themselves depraved the text. I do but state two plain facts: viz. (1) That whereas in the second century certain heretical tenets on the subject of Marriage prevailed largely, and those who advocated as well as those who opposed such teaching relied chiefly on the Gospel for their proofs: (2) It is accordingly found that not only does the phenomenon of 'various readings' prevail in those places of the Gospel which bear most nearly on the disputed points, but the 'readings' are exactly of that suspicious kind which would naturally result from a tampering with the text by men who had to maintain, or else to combat, opinions of a certain cla.s.s. I proceed to establish what I have been saying by some actual examples[493].

St. Matt. xix. 29.

[Greek: e gynaika,]

--BD abc Orig.

St. Mark x. 29.

[Greek: e gynaika,]

--[Symbol: Aleph]BD[Symbol: Delta], abc, &c.

St. Luke xviii. 29.

[Greek: e gynaika], all allow it.

[Greek: hotan de lege; hoti "pas hostis apheke gynaika," ou touto phesin, hoste aplos diaspasthai tous gamous, k.t.l.] Chrys. vii. 636 E.

[Greek: Paradeigmatisai] (in St. Matt. i. 19) is another of the expressions which have been disturbed by the same controversy. I suspect that Origen is the author (see the heading of the Scholion in Cramer's Catenae) of a certain uncritical note which Eusebius reproduces in his 'quaestiones ad Stephanum[494]' on the difference between [Greek: deigmatisai] and [Greek: paradeigmatisai]; and that with him originated the subst.i.tution of the uncompounded for the compounded verb in this place. Be that as it may, Eusebius certainly read [Greek: paradeigmatisai] (Dem. 320), with all the uncials but two (BZ): all the cursives but one (I). Will it be believed that Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Alford, Westcott and Hort, on such slender evidence as that are prepared to reconstruct the text of St. Matthew's Gospel?

It sounds so like trifling with a reader's patience to invite his attention to an elaborate discussion of most of the changes introduced into the text by Tischendorf and his colleagues, that I knowingly pa.s.s over many hundreds of instances where I am nevertheless perfectly well aware of my own strength,--my opponent's weakness. Such discussions in fact become unbearable when the points in dispute are confessedly trivial. No one however will deny that when three consecutive words of our Lord are challenged they are worth contending for. We are invited then to believe (St. Luke xxii. 67-8) that He did not utter the bracketed words in the following sentence,--'If I tell you, ye will not believe; and if I ask you, ye will not answer (Me, nor let Me go).' Now, I invite the reader to inquire for the grounds of this a.s.sertion.

Fifteen of the uncials (including AD), and every known cursive, besides all the Latin and all the Syriac copies recognize the bracketed words.

They are only missing in [Symbol: Aleph]BLT and their ally the Bohairic.

Are we nevertheless to be a.s.sured that the words are to be regarded as spurious? Let the reader then be informed that Marcion left out seven words more (viz. all from, 'And if I ask you' to the end), and will he doubt either that the words are genuine or that their disappearance from four copies of bad character, as proved by their constant evidence, and from one version is sufficiently explained?

FOOTNOTES:

[441] [Greek: pseudonymou gnoseos] 1 Tim. vi. 20.

[442] 1 Tim. iv. 1-3.

[443] ii. 17.

[444] Acts xx. 29.

[445] Rev. ii. 6.

[446] Rev. ii. 15.